Should federal political candidates have to reveal the names of all their donors, not just those who give them more than $200?

Yes

1 of 4

by Linda Sunkle-Pierucki

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

The right to vote in America has always been a private affair: one of our most fundamental of citizenship rights. It stands to reason, then, that we feel our donations to a political candidate should be between ourselves and the candidate. Why, then, would anyone feel all political contributions should be a matter of public record?

Irregularitie s in campaign finance are nothing new. Recent history shows this financing often breaks federal campaign finance laws. The only limits on collecting campaign contributions appears to be whether the campaign organizers feel they will be caught holding a bag of dirty money. Any loophole left to these unethical campaign mafioso will be abused; the latest election cycle gives us copious examples of the types of loopholes campaigners have all but driven a Brinks truck through:

One candidate collected over $275 million in the "under $200" category. Two-thirds of that was donated on-line. To donate on-line, a credit card must be used. This should assure that at least, the donor was a valid donor, given that credit cards require a verified name and address to match the card. In this case, the campaign TURNED OFF verification procedures for credit cards, allowing donations to be accepted from obviously fictitious donors, donors in foreign countries and donations from anonymous "gift card"-type prepaid credit cards.

This same campaign received repeated warnings from the Federal Elections Commission in their reviews of on-going donations over $200 that there were irregularities occurring in small donations by the same individuals that added up to well over the $2300 limit for individual contributions-in many cases, made by obviously fictitious names in $25 increments. Donating $25 from the same card repeatedly to the extent that they add up to $17,000+ is still not allowable-the individual can only donate the maximum $2300, and his contributions have to be subject to FEC audit. The campaign's answer was they would sort out and return the excess donations and any that were found to be illegal-AFTER the election. Have they? Without a required audit, no one knows.

The sheer numbers of contributions from obviously fictitious names, such as Mr Doodad Pro and Mr Good Will, the numbers listing their state of residence as UK or IR, and other anomalies prompted one FEC examiner to file a complaint asking his superiors to open an investigation into the practices of the campaign-it did not occur.

Because the egregious irregularities regarding small donations going on in the campaign became such public knowledge, a sizable group of concerned citizens attempted donations using fictitious names and check-out counter gift cards to test the theories. If one has ever attempted to use one of these $25 or $50 gift cards to make an on-line purchase, one soon finds out it cant be done: banks demand not only a matching name and address but a three-digit verification code on each purchase. Since these cards don't provide these methods of validation, the cards are rejected out of hand. No bank will allow such transactions to occur because of the danger the card may be fictitious or the number stolen. Every one of these contributions went through, even with such obviously fictitious names as Mickey Mouse. It was glaringly obvious that the campaign had either reprogrammed software or turned off in some manner the validation mechanisms that prevent fraud. Since the major credit card companies would never willingly make good on such cards, one can only believe the monies represented by this huge pile of now-worthless cards had to have been replaced with cash from some other source-an excellent method of foreign money laundering.

It is known that groups overseas were holding fund-raisers and soliciting donations in the name of the campaign. If these foreign contributions are illegal, how are they then funneled into the campaign coffers? The only way to manage this without being caught red-handed is through the method described above.

One of the anomalies of our election funding laws is that only candidates accepting public funding face a complete audit. Those candidates not accepting public funds therefore never have to face a level playing field. In this way, candidates can become the bearer of enormous foreign influence via foreign contributions leading them to be elected. This is generally seen as being prevented by the disclosure laws regarding FEC disclosure for donations over $200. However, when a candidate receives huge amounts of on-line donations via the system just described, that safeguard is bypassed. There is nothing to guarantee that any of the $200 million came from valid citizen voters. One can only question how much public support did the candidate actually receive? And whose "mandate" does he intend to follow?

As long as there are campaign donations, there will be fraud. Someone somewhere will devise a method of sneaking illegal money into someone's campaign war chest. But now that the ways the individual under-$200 contribution regulations can be abused have come to light, it is vital we close the loophole. And sadly, that will mean having everyone's contributions identified and audited.

Learn more about this author, Linda Sunkle-Pierucki.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.